The
Word became flesh and dwelt among us, Saint John declared in the
opening of his Gospel. So far so good, but have you ever wondered if the
Word could have become a donkey and dwelt among us? Or could the Word
have been incarnate as a man and as a donkey at the same time?
This question is not as far-fetched as it sounds. In Stanley Grenz’s book The Named God and the Question of Being: A Trinitarian Theo-ontology,
Grenz tells how the philosopher William of Ockham (1288-1347) declared
that God might have come to earth as an ox or donkey. Other medieval
philosophers disagreed with Ockham, and the matter became one of intense
dispute. According to accounts left to us by Desiderius Erasmus
(1466-1536), by the fifteenth-century, scholastic theologians had moved
on to trying to work out more subtle details such as whether God could
have been nailed on the cross and sacrificed for our sins if he had been
incarnated as a donkey.
This wasn’t just an abstract question for medieval philosophers with
too much time on their hands. Rather, it was a question that penetrated
to the heart of an entire way of understanding the world and God’s
relation to it. For William of Ockham, it was important to emphasize
that God has no attributes apart from His freedom to be free from all
attributes. Concerned—not without some warrant—that the dominant
scholasticism of his day was domesticating God, turning Him into a
civilized Aristotelian, Ockham asserted that God’s saving will-acts must
be unconditioned by any factors outside the Divine fiat, including the
past history of God’s works. Indeed, Ockham insisted that God could even
produce in human beings knowledge of a non-existent past if He wanted
to, although he never went as far as some of his contemporaries
(particularly John of Mirecourt, Gregory of Rimini, and Pierre d’Ailly)
in suggesting that God could actually undo the past.
Ockham hoped to combat stagnant views of God’s freedom, yet as Timothy Nonne pointed out in his article on Ockham in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, “in several texts in his Sentences
commentaries, Ockham allows that God could command the opposite of
practically any act currently contained under his ordered power.
Ockham’s reasoning on such occasions is that God cannot be disallowed
from doing what seems to involve no contradiction.”
Keep reading...
No comments:
Post a Comment